The extraction of nucleic acid from cells or viruses is a necessary task for many applications in the fields of molecular biology and biomedical diagnostics. Once released from the cells, the nucleic acid may be used for genetic analysis, e.g., sequencing, pathogen identification and quantification, nucleic acid mutation analysis, genome analysis, gene expression studies, pharmacological monitoring, storing of DNA libraries for drug discovery, etc. The genetic analysis typically involves nucleic acid amplification and detection using known techniques. For example, known polynucleotide amplification reactions include polymerase chain reaction (PCR), ligase chain reaction (LCR), QB replicase amplification (QBR), self-sustained sequence replication (3SR), strand-displacement amplification (SDA), “branched chain” DNA amplification, ligation activated transcription (LAT), nucleic acid sequence-based amplification (NASBA), repair chain reaction (RCR), and cycling probe reaction (CPR).
The extraction of nucleic acids from cells or viruses is generally performed by physical or chemical methods. Chemical methods typically employ lysing agents (e.g., detergents, enzymes, or strong organics) to disrupt the cells and release the nucleic acid, followed by treatment of the extract with chaotropic salts to denature any contaminating or potentially interfering proteins. Such chemical methods are described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,652,141 to Henco et al. and U.S. Pat. No. 5,856,174 to Lipshutz et al. One disadvantage to the use of harsh chemicals for disrupting cells is that the chemicals are inhibitory to subsequent amplification of the nucleic acid. In using chemical disruption methods, therefore, it is typically necessary to purify the nucleic acid released from the cells before proceeding with further analysis. Such purification steps are time consuming, expensive, and reduce the amount of nucleic acid recovered for analysis.
Physical methods for disrupting cells often do not require harsh chemicals that are inhibitory to nucleic acid amplification (e.g., PCR). These physical methods, however, also have their disadvantages. For example, one physical method for disrupting cells involves placing the cells in a solution and heating the solution to a boil to break open the cell walls. Unfortunately, the heat will often denature proteins and cause the proteins to stick to the released nucleic acid. The proteins then interfere with subsequent attempts to amplify the nucleic acid. Another physical method is freeze thawing in which the cells are repeatedly frozen and thawed until the cells walls are broken. Unfortunately, freeze thawing often fails to break open many structures, most notably certain spores and viruses that have extremely tough outer layers.
Another physical method for disrupting cells is the use of a pressure instrument. With this method, a solution of mycobacterial microorganisms is passed through a very small diameter hole under high pressure. During passage through the hole, the mycobacteria are broken open by the mechanical forces and their internal contents are spilled into solution. Such a system, however, is large, expensive and requires a cooling system to prevent excessive heat from building up and damaging the contents of the lysed cells. Moreover, the instrument needs to be cleaned and decontaminated between runs and a large containment system is required when infectious material is handled. A further disadvantage to this system is that the solution must contain only particles having substantially the same size, so that it may not be used to process many untreated clinical or biological specimens.
It is also known that cells can be lysed by subjecting the cells to ultrasonic agitation. This method is disclosed by Murphy et al. in U.S. Pat. No. 5,374,522. According to the method, solutions or suspensions of cells are placed in a container with small beads. The container is then placed in an ultrasound bath until the cells disrupt, releasing their cellular components. This method has several disadvantages. First, the distribution of ultrasonic energy in the bath is not uniform, so that a technician must locate a high energy area within the bath and place the container into that area. The non-uniform distribution of ultrasonic energy also produces inconsistent results. Second, the ultrasound bath does not focus energy into the container so that the disruption of the cells often takes several minutes to complete, a relatively long period of time when compared to the method of the present invention. Third, it is not practical to carry an ultrasound bath into the field for use in biowarfare detection, forensic analysis, or on-site testing of environmental samples.